I admire Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe as credible scientist but David Berlinski is a scam scientist.David is a more like religious preacher more than a scientist

Scene*

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. - Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97 Colloquially, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".

+Tobstarrilez He's got knowledge, intellect and clearly has the truth on his side. Can't compete with that.

He also would seem to have the Lord on his side. I think God has raised him up for a purpose.

@@Scripture-Man Couldn't agree more!

How can evolutionism debaters ever win a debate? They have zero facts, just speculation they call theory. ID debaters have facts and evidence. Why would they even show up for a debate

What? How? Please explain....

Check out his books. Same tone. Quotes many non-theists in a respectful way. Also, see Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. James Tour and Dr. John Lennox.

Wonderful

rac717 And should be buried.

@@MartTLS Oh have no fear, we all soon shall be.

@@MartTLS Indeed, that crossed my mind as well. Oh, how brief we are.

@@MartTLS Meyer will be with God, and you will no longer be a smart ass when you expire.

@@rac7773 Did you read that in an old book of supernatural nonsense?

Scott Carpenter indeed. :D

No faith, just a knowledge of science to understand evolution. Creation of life is not part of evolution. That's something creationists believe. If you're going to argue at least try to understand the opposition's standpoint.

We have isolated Biological precursors in a lab. From there it hasnt been shown the leap from pre-biototic to biological systems. However biochemistry has been shown to form many comlexed substances. Sure there were many biochemical dead ends.It doesnt mean it didnt exist

Claire, you and I have outlined your public Satanic faith too many times (quark-to-man pagan faith): ... nothing accidentally --> ... to big bang ... to quarks ... to light elements ... to star formation/accretion ... to orbits ... to heavy elements ... to periodic table ... to earth at center of expanding cosmos ... ... to complete harmony, symmetry, and proportion ... to abiogenesis ... to all ecosystems 'in place' for life to exist .. to irreducibly complex molecules ... etc. ... to this and that ... to man ???? Quark-to-man faith = the greatest pagan religion out there ... with infinite accidental miracles you hatefully preach: to damn as many souls as possible. Forget all this OEC scientism ... and just accept Jesus as your Logos Savior with one EASY miracle/commandment: That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. (1 John 3:23) Forget NASA shills and fake astrophysics

Who is "Claire"?

That matches my data on YT too, whether on these videos, political ones, or BYU-related channels.

Or, "I don't feel like agreeing with you right now, and also you spelled "irreducible" wrong in page 42"

" I'll try to save everyone some time: 75% of the "critics" questions: "I'm smarter than you, so how come I dont understand your argument?" " Indeed.

Is that what you really got from the conversation?? I understand your point. Could be true but it does not negate all the really good points they put forward. Simply means they understand this subject better than he does. I guess you're not in academia. This is not arrogance. It's called education, and guess what? it's not a bad thing.

@@hellowkiske All that matters is that they're trying to get closer on figuring out how God made our bodies work!!!

Scientific consensus! Yay.

Did you ever think about the fact that science can get quite esoteric and the time needed to bring a non expert up to speed so that one can explain their error can be prohibitive and that that rather than any disingenuousness on their part might just be why they resort to playing the credentials card?

@@snuzebuster Sorry Sir, I am working in a hospital and my job is to bring new nurses and docters into the feld of anaesthesia. So I have to explan myself and react all day to questions raised - and I have to give answers to compex questions. So my answers are not one sentence and the debate is closed - I try to bring a small explanation of the needed complexity to then answer the question. And that is the thing I would like to see from the two opponents from Dr. Meyer. Show us the point from that you are judging or viewing and then make your question. And if Dr. Meyer (and we in the audience) are not smart enough to get the question --- what means no answer can be given - don´t stop here. Ask a Person that has Meyers view and the needed complex specific expert knowlege you need for your question and answer and discuss with this person. It is lame to hide behind a wall of "I am to smart" ..... and you are not enough expert to discuss with you

@@MrDontspamme Well, I cannot say that you do not have a valid point. But my point also has some validity. That is, there is a certain disadvantage to the scientists side of the debate because it is often much more difficult and time consuming to explain why a bad argument is bad than it to make a bad argument. This is especially true when understanding why the argument is bad requires a good deal of technical understanding.

@@snuzebuster that is the reason why I refer to a person with the needed complex specific expert knowlege.... Maybe the expert can convince you because he has the knowlege to make the point Meyer could not make (because of lacking specific knowlage). But when I take a look to other areas in the human body I can see the handwriting of a creator (aka ID). For instance blood coagulation. It is so complex and so smart - that could not be coincidence. What about procreation? What about men and women (x and y chromosome)? Why does the men deliver that feature? Vocal apparatus? working of a kidney? Hormons? How does the ear function (incl. sense of balance)? etc. And the most complex: What is it that makes a beeing a living beeing? What is the breath of life? On my point of view there are not only the DNA things to been mentioned by Dr. Meyer but there is far more of complexity and hints to a ID (aka God).

Thinking the universe was created by someone who you embue with your own human image is....blasphemous to any other life in the universe and also makes us as a species look embarrassingly egotistical thinking that a creator that LOOKS just like us created everything in the universe; matter and all the other intelligent sentient life forms. Imagine other sentient beings finding out that we think the entire cosmos including THEMSELVES was made by “someone” that looks like us, and us only. Im agnostic so I understand to an extent where dr meyer is coming from HOWEVER he is trying to use OBJECTIVE science to prove a HUMAN MADE RELIGION. If you have a tree and quantum mechanics is the trunk of the tree then you have a couple branches poking off the trunk ( chemistry, biology, classical/macro physics etc.) in the biology branch you have another branch that pokes off that one, that branch is called humans and one branch that could grow off the human branch would be religion. Its man mad and without biology theres no man, no man, there is no holy books, and thus no more man made god. If you want to choose to believe in god try seeing the cosmos as the objective mind of “god”, an understanding that is incomprehensible to subjective human reality. god is more likely to be an immaterial genderless mathematician than the man made colonial god called jesus or YHWH. All religion seems to point to the same theme and man made religion could likely be a representation of that god the same way mathematical language is invented BUT the nature of math is discovered

@@velvetrest4566 wow, quite the read and I can definitely understand from you position of agnosticism but you have made some terrible assumptions which to be fair in all honesty stem from some truth. Religion is man made there is no argument against that but does that dismiss all evidence of a supernatural intelligence? With all fine tuning that exists in the universe and mathematical precision that utterly defies all laws of probability that have been scientifically discovered to be true and went into the very creation or in your case formation of the universe and all life there in, the diverse biological and chemical matter and compounds gathered with such precision along with the very software to govern how each material is gathered and executed to form life as we know it, humans in all our intelligence still baffle at the share marvel of how it happened still struggle to create anything even remotely as complex yet we believe that we can explain our own existence in a theory that defies all logic and are factually grasping at straws in an effort to prove we are of our own creation. I believe our search for whether or not there was a creator should have already ended based on the evidence we already have and the search for who the creator is should be happening and if that is your current journey I solute you, for me personally I have found that truth not through religion but through the word, as discovered by Eli Roth an ASTRO physicist following the footsteps of his mentor Albert Einstein that the biblical event is the only so called truth that is perfectly aligned with what is observed in nature, Dr. Meyer is one such person who has also seen this and several persons considered to be of high intellect Dr. Schroeder who was a lecturer at MIT and several well renouned scientists, Dr. Francis Collins, a Co mapper of the human DNA as a part of the human genome project. I'm saying all this to say that I too found myself on a journey of the purpose of my life and life in general and arrived at this conclusion through all my research.

@@khareemcarr8247 I agree God is the greatest 🥰

It is actually a ramble of buzz words.

@@rock801 wow....a reply to a 7yr old comment! When confronted with ppl of a higher intellect i.e. the above Dr. Meyer, some ppl unfortunately do get lost 🤷‍♂️ But don't let that discourage you....it's never too late.

Yes and thank you for being so patient with people who disagree

Yokai Seishinkage Yes! Thank you. There are other methods to knowledge then just the scientific method, and all scientific theories start out as pondering the reality of the universe and using the scientific method to attempt to arrive at an understanding of the world. With everything thing that Meyer has studied and explained in these videos, he clearly has profound scientific knowledge and speaks/understands/does science- why does materialists not get this? Good point Yokai.

To simplify : science deals with the physical while theology and philosophy deals with the metaphysical.

What is your alternative theory to evolution? Adam and Eve and the talking snake? Adam made from dust, Eve made from Adam's rib and each animal species separately conjured into existence but never mind how? The Forbidden Fruit and Noah's ark and the entire human race descended from a small number of brothers and sisters through incest less than 300 generations ago? And then you wonder why people laugh at Creationists.

have you seen "Scientist Reacts to "Fossil Record Debunked" | Reacteria" on youtube

really great quote

The whole reason that stuff is interesting is precisely because science has not explained it yet. Curiosity drives us. I think It's a dishonest jab by Stephen using the stereotype that science is 'boring' and promoting a god of the gaps argument at the same time.

The Pharaoh well, we can say that it's not random or at the very least probably not.

@The Pharaoh Evolution became a laughable myth in the 20th century, during which it was disproved by millions of discoveries. One such discovery is that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Another is the discovery that the cell's structural design is not generated by genetic information, but is instead passed on by reproduction form the reproductive cells of the parents (Cortical Inheritance) which traces back to the original created organism. Evolutionism is a philosophy which is contradicted by science. Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes. DNA is a material medium encoded with information which is organized to conform to linguistics, possesses algorithmic information processing operations (Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems, David J D’Onofrio, David L Abel and Donald E Johnson, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 2012), and the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, punctuation, syntax, grammar, and aprobetics, all of which have been discovered to be more complex that the language proteries of human spoken languages (Complex grammar of the genomic language, published in the journal Nature, November 9, 2015, Karolinska Institutet). The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup, and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations. There is no potential for the material actions of chemistry to produce information, algorithms, and linguistics. They are non-physical fundamental entities that can only be produced by intelligence. This fact is proof that all life was designed by a mind of supreme intelligence. Because of this and many other biological discoveries, it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that evolution is impossible and creation is a scientific fact. DNA is a 4-dimentional (3 dimentions+time) operating system which is far more complex than man's computer software technology, posessing many thousands of information hierarchies and pathways in the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. DNA is a dual-directional information package, providing different information depending upon which strand and direction the transcription machinery of the cell is traveling. Man does not know how to to write computer software that can be read both forward and backwards to provide separate information processes and functionality. It is beyond our ability. DNA's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences, and information in different locations of the molecule are interdependent with each other, even when separated by hundreds or thousands of base pairs in distance from each other - a feature which exemplifies why chemical processes cannot design DNA. DNA possesses codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule. Genetic algorithms and information possess forward-thinking properties, which nature is incapable of producing because molecules are not sentient. During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism over time. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it. If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science because the truth is uncomfortable, and to continue to believe things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat, or that frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin. Eugenie Scott, the popular militant defender of evolutionism has stated, "If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten." Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation, over one million studies, has provided consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and do not add anything useful to the physiology of any organism, not even incrementally. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite such a massive body of evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution because genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept.

@@augustoindi4093 - An absolute brilliant statement of facts Sir ! I was hoping that Pharaoh would respond , but , I am not sure he is up to the task .. I very much enjoyed reading your position ,,, I will no doubt read it many more times .. Thank you for laying it out as you did ..

Your description of an atheist fits exactly a clown Bill Maher.

@@avatacron60 Or a creationist.

777THUTH777 Truth hurts buddy. Get a real education.

777 ...only to thinking people who are leaving the old 19th century dead science

Study Biology. evolution is crushing it.

Evolution was crushing biology, but biology has now been rescued! Tell me how first life came from non-life? Was primordial soup the god? How did the right chemicals keep the wrong ones away? How did the right chemicals figure out the right way to interact? Where did the genetic information come from? [tick, tick, tick...]

777 You've got a mud hole filled with chemicals. The chemicals needed for producing first life need to come together at the right time, in the right order, and in the right way...without any outside guiding force. Now you don't think that there were only the right chemicals floating in that pool, do you? The wrong chemicals didn't just stand aside and watch the show, right? How do the mindless electromagnetic forces keep things in order 777?

Matheson is a goof and a self-contradicting hypocrite. Doesn't belong on the same stage as Dr. Meyer. The guy calls himself "a Christian"??....what a joke!

have you seen "Scientist Reacts to "Fossil Record Debunked" | Reacteria" on youtube

Naa he isn't saying that at all. That's basically saying Zeus caused Lightning 3000 years ago, is the best explanation for that time, only because we didn't know what causes lightening back then. 🙄

@@johnendalk6537 Zeus is part of a polytheistic theology, your caricaturizing falls short.

But you are aware that you drive car, use phone, listen to liars like this one and take medicine based on "best explanations"? Right? You know? 😁

Agree 100% he is alway polite even when attack and people like him always win .. maybe not in the immediate. But at the end everybody will recognize the things he said as truth

Those who doubt is credibility do the background before you make statements saying that it's not a scientist. Thank you have a blessed day

@@mcmanustony - Ad hominem criticism is not an argument. Meyer’s presentation was way more convincing than the Evolutionists argument.

@@mcmanustony Nice ad hominem. Meyer has been absolutely correct, using science, in debunking old school dinosaur evolution theories that can barely explain a gain of 1mm on a bird's beak.

@@mcmanustony What did he actually say that was factually wrong?

@@mcmanustony - You’re still using ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the arguments.

Bad Joo Joo:And funny how those Ewoks on Endor worshipped C-3PO like a god because they could not fathom any other explanation for his existence.

You guys really love D&D and cosplay, don't you? Try the following: Logics - Take a base value that holds true, without additional assumptions and/or information. Honesty - Make sure that when you find a smaller part, that invalidates earlier ideas, you continue pursuing an even smaller logical component. Reason/Reasonability - Connect dots. Don't use preset routes that are undetermined to take you off your path.

Mark de Haan​​ So is there any materialistic explanation for the origin of the first genetic information and code in the DNA.. If you can account for any known mechanism experimentally and scientifically then you'll have my attention. Start making your scientist.. That's my challenge!

Major Bee So, it is too difficult for you? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/ oops. Oh, just to make sure you stay honest, your comment: +Mark de Haan​​ So is there any materialistic explanation for the origin of the first genetic information and code in the DNA.. If you can account for any known mechanism experimentally and scientifically then you'll have my attention. Start making your scientist.. That's my challenge!

nope. that did explain it

+Major Bee what hurts? got cognitive dissonance?

One is clear to you because it is overly simplistic. The other is unclear to you, because you just don't understand it. That is fine but please try to understand first and then seek to be understood.

@@jiin5993 . ,

@@excalibur6139 hahahahahah

@@allegrabraun7545 Okay I guess your feelings trump science then

@@mcmanustony youve basically said "i dont like his arguments and i dont know how to counter them, so ill make attacks on his person rather than the arguments"

@b1itsjustme You mean your comment?

@b1itsjustme What does it have to do with anything here?

@b1itsjustme you have made one of the most ignorant claims I have ever seen. You stated that all religious people are religious because of emotional reasons. This is plainly false. All you have to do is talk to a number of religious people to find this out. It is a tally the opposite. Almost all of the atheists I have talked to are atheists because of emotional reasons. Usually anger and pride. Take you for example, your claim that all religious people are such because of emotional reasons isn't based on any evidence or studies of any kind, you made it up because you feel the need to attack anyone who disagrees with you as you are insecure in your beliefs. Just take a look at your comments in this thread. It is sad to meet people like you, but I hope one day you will get over your emotions and start thinking rationally and logically about these important matters.

@@jackplumbridge2704 Had to thumbs up your comment because your critique appears spot on to me. Anyone thinking critically cannot trot out "peer reviewed" as a basis for approving, or rejecting, the truth of an article, paper, etc... The number of peer-reviewed articles out there, for example, that are dead wrong is astounding and someone who is thinking with their brain, instead of emotions, would avoid laying for themselves such a defeater for their credibility. As well, his other statements such as: "Talk about misreading facts and making it come out the way you want"... gee, I wonder if any atheist scientists have ever done that? "from a discredited organization of frauds"... even if this were true, does it mean that *everything* they put out is wrong? Logical fallacy after logical fallacy, yet, we are supposed to believe (according to people like him) that *we* are the ignorant ones... /rant-off Anyways, great comment!

trolling much

Nicely pointed out

The belief in a designer, specifically god, was held by almost everyone back then. What are you on about? Also, the discovery of cells and their biochemistry and subsequent analysis of genomes provided overwhelming information that confirmed how many living beings are related through common ancestry. The remnants of every beings evolutionary past are found in their DNA. It was a huge step in evolutionary biology.

@@mcmanustony Your post encapsulates the very good reason I no longer debate with atheists online. Eventually, they get nasty and abusive. Fortunately, I have more constructive aspects of my day than deal with abusive people. I don't expect to change your mind. That is not my obligation. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

@@mcmanustony My disdain of atheist scientists ‘espousing of militant atheism rests in their popularization of nihilist atheism as part of an open public campaign. This is not true of all atheist scientists. For example, Dr. Sean Carroll is an atheist scientist (way smarter than Dawkins) who does not choose the route of advertising nihilist atheism. I have met Dr. Carroll: and he is remarkably soft spoken and aware of the implications of atheism. Perhaps for that reason or others, he does not choose to try to infect a completely new generation with nihilism. So there is a reason for my Dawkin’s enmity. Historian Simon Whistler (“What did the German Public Know about the Holocaust During WWII)”, gave a superb online presentation of this subject, and strongly indicted population eugenics as a very strong contributing factor both in the Holocaust itself and the unwillingness of countries to allow Jews in, and eugenics’ open acceptance in the West. In fairness on this issue, some famous biologists like Stephen Jay Gould detested social Darwinism, even though he was an atheist or perhaps an agnostic. He was honest about it. I admire him. He did not want to establish a "new generation of atheists." He just wanted to try to explain some of the "problems" of modern Darwinism. He believed in Darwinism but also recognized its cracks. A true scientist and intellect. As an atheist you will counter with the heinous Religious Wars of Europe, not to mention the mass executions of the English Tudor years that were directly caused (no argument) by religious differences. But as an addendum we might also add that power-politics also had a major role, exclusive of Religion, which was sort of added as a reason d’état. This is not to also mention the confusion of suffering and evil itself and its polluting aspects both in nature and in cultural traditions. Both Nietzsche and Solzhenitsyn reminded us that “Without God, anything is possible.” You would correctly counter that even with God, anything is possible. And probable. As a possible passing comment, at least we can both agree that Christianity itself, whether you believe in it or not, does NOT shy away from evil and human suffering and wears it openly on the Cross. I might ask you why you even go to sites that discuss religion? As a convinced atheist, you surely do not need any examples of science that might demonstrate a cause to believe. Why do you “waste your time” on scientists who may be religious? And we go around and around in endless circles of examples. You don’t convince me, and I don’t convince you. Is this “grown up” enough for you? Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

@@mcmanustony We will agree to disagree. That is the best I can do. You will have to live with it. I have no idea why you think my opinion is of any consequence to you. Darwin has no idea what was in the cell. We can both agree on that. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

What makes you say he doesn't comprehend this point?

Sean Kennedy exactly

Not comprehending or refusing to comprehend?

What I gather is that he didn't understand why design had to be thing that explains the gaps that naturalism/materialism didn't fill. I'm on Meyer's side but I see where Mr. Hunt was coming from.

@@korykent5645 That seemed to me to be Dr. Matheson's objection, not Dr. Hunt's. (The camera work at the beginning makes it sort of confusing as to which one is which). But, responding to Dr. Matheson, that's not Dr. Meyer's argument. The argument is that some elements contain information, and that the best inference (not the only conceivable one, but the best one given what we know) is intelligence. Responding to Dr. Hunt, as he points out, to claim that the cell shows this specified complexity isn't to say every element of it does and that on every level.

D Sherbank I was asking the same question. “Uh, this guy says he’s a Christian? He sure sounds like an evolutionist.”

he is a Calvinist. Their beliefs are quite harsh, in contrast to the belief that all have a fair shot of heaven more or less based on the choices of a free will, Calvinists believe there is no free will; like machines designed for purpose some are born to go to hell, and the elect are born to go to heaven all ultimately for the glory of God. I think he doesn't believe in intelligent design because it leaves out God from the universe, making it more mechanical - and mechanical things are by their nature predetermined, which is spiritually a key and compatible feature with Calvinism (and traditional protestant thinking in general really). It's just a guess, but he might see a compatibility with his Calvinism and materialism. It could also just be he has internalized the beliefs of his scientist friends, who are of course pervasive with this sort of thinking, but that's just lame if it is.

Because he is a confused Christian. Calvinists are some of the most hostile and confused people on the planet.

@@ProfessorPicke Matheson needs to read Proverbs 8:13. I'd want my money back if he were my teacher.

@@ProfessorPicke Thank you for the explanation. I'll do a little research on Calvinism. I can't believe Matheson is a university professor. He seems so immature but maybe both men were suffering from jet lag.

@@mcmanustony Have you ever considered learning the difference between scientific hypotheses and religious activism? Or have you considered that working on losing your cognitive dissonance might help you actually listen to the clear rational presentation of I.D. theory by Dr. Meyer and thus be able to understand it?

Deflection

There’s nothing to attack .

@@MartTLS Lol shut up yes there is. Specified typographic information comes from a mind, not a blind unguided natural process

@@TyrellWellickEcorp How would you know ?

@@MartTLS Not even gonna answer that stupid question. Keep looking for a different explanation, you’re never gonna find it.

Intelligent Design isn't science. Its religion, and has been ruled a religion in courts of law. Meyer hasn't, nor has anyone else, ever presented evidence that any being created the universe, Earth, or any animal or plant or snowflake on the planet.

odinata You are correct that it was decided in a US court. You are wrong thinking that intelligent design is a religion. There will never be evidence beyond its existance that anything designed life on Earth. The design of the universe is too large for me to comprehend.

James King There is no evidence that it is designed.

odinata Complexity with design is not possible to occur without intelligent direction. Random chance does not create intelligent designs. Cellular function has the appearance and function of an intelligent design.

James King Never heard of fractals, eh? No evidence of design has been presented by you or anybody else so foar. All you are doing is saying "Wow, i don't see how that could form naturally, so a god musta dunnit". That's not science.

I have seen Rupert Sheldrake debate Dennet and Dennet did not come across too well.

See Hoover Institution conversation. Dr. Meyer speaks with other brilliant men, much less arrogant than Matheson.

Ikr? Idk If you like politics, but if you are looking 4 very respectful discussions on politics too, look up Dave Rubin. He's soooo polite and respectful when he talks to ppl, it's very refreshing.

Dana Scully Thank You !

Exactly

"If people knew what we truly are there would be world peace and enlightenment in all aspects of living." what are people like?

Wow! Thanks for the list. And no doubt there are many more items not included.

@@THUTH-ix3tt y do u think that we are primates

I agree.

Classy, too. Haha.

It's a non starter debate.

Haha, yes Matheson conceded.

You're kidding right? In science a common sense answer that violates methodological naturalism is not "the best" answer. It's a wrong answer as far as the scientific method is concerned. If you want to step outside of the established scientific norm on this and debate whether philosophically it's the best answer, OK, I would then ask what is the criteria your using in making that judgment. To me it looks like an appeal to "common sense" and common sense has proven itself to be a lousy guide at this level of abstraction.

At 44:26 the biologist says, "...and so I don't find the argument convincing. I really don't, but I think I know why." Dr. Stephen Meyer won the debate.

Meyer on fire 😁

He's not even a scientist, you ignorant plum.

@@DrunkenHotei What have you studied and where is your research we can study

@@dynamicloveministries334 Well I majored in physics, though I'm not a researcher in the field. Right now, I'm working on a paper on HCI, specifically how to analyze common uses of CPGs in the home to equip them with "smart" technology to integrate then into the IoT. The research is still a work in progress though, so the paper hasn't been published. I did the statistical analysis for a study in correlation between numerosity and mathematical aptitude, but my name doesn't appear on the paper since it wasn't actually my research. You can probably find it on Elsevier under Abreu et al.

@@DrunkenHotei thanks

@@dynamicloveministries334 You're welcome, I guess. Any particular reason you asked?

@@mcmanustony pathetic troll.

+joe shmo Meyer's ideas are not scientific theories, he just takes potshots at evolution while presenting no alternative theory about the process of speciation..

laslo lownestein I SUGGEST INVESTING IN A BOX ON Q-TIPS.

laslo lownestein SOME VISINE TOO AND PERHAPS A DIET OF FRESHWATER FISH 3 TIMES PER WEEK. .

joe shmo Creationists resort to childish sarcasm when they lose an argument.

frankos rooni BACK UP WHAT U SAY FRANK ! PROVABLY WRONG WHERE OR ON WHAT SPECIFIC STATEMENT ? YOUR SOOO TYPICAL OF THOSE WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

could you do less assessing of the person and more referring to their doctrine?

I found both the opponents in this video to be quite disturbing. They were both kind of sinister and dark in different ways. One of them identified as a Christian, but the Bible says you know a tree by its spiritual fruit. From having watched Dr Meyer speak for 4 hours now, he seems like a genuine Christian. He is meek and sincere.

Amen. The Bible is 100% truth.

Yes it will

+David Geffeney - the likes of Meyers do not do any "work". They also do not do any research or advance any theory that a serious scientist would recognize as science. They exist to make uneasy Christians feel justified in denying the obvious and proven reality that we are evolved beings.

Exactly. One may know alot, but if one cant coherently and logically explain what they know, it seems nearly pointless.

I just watched three sumo wrestlers in the Hoover Institution video with a Mr. Robinson. Dr. Meyers was still the best but his courteous and much less egotistical debaters were still brilliant.

The Pharaoh you should listen to the video before you comment on it or you risk looking stupid

@The Pharaoh B, .

@The Pharaoh . . , . Mlm . .

Excellent point!

So can we say evolution is a fact and its processes and mechanisms are constantly changing...? Sounds like science too me.

@@elliot7205 Sure, which is the position of Old Earth Creationism... The problem atheist evolutionists have is that there AREN'T new species crawling out of the oceans every day or examples of fish sprouting legs or birds growing hands with opposable thumbs. The case for materialistic evolution would be far easier to take for "fact" if it could be shown to actually be a "fact"... but it isn't. That's the point.

@@wesleywalkerthewriter what? What exactly are you looking for? Why hasn't it shown to be a fact please explain?

@@elliot7205 You have to have this spelled out for you? Do you have a degree?

+Ed Reynolds - right, Christians are never susceptible to subjective preference. They just "happen" to fall into the same denominations of their parents/country/era after a strict, objective analysis of the facts.

@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016 so you're agreeing that their critiques are both subjective preference and on the same level as someone just believing what their parents told them?

+Orlath McManus - correct, and the fact that our parents pass ideas down to us does not contribute one iota that they are true.

+Orlaith McManus - I'm not engaging in the genetic fallacy. The fact that Baptist Christianity gets passed down generation after generation does not show that it is false, I'm simply stating that it is highly improbably that every Baptist Christian who is the child and grandchild and great grandchild of other Baptist Christians arrived at that conclusion from an impartial, objective analysis of the facts. No one in their right mind could ever adopt the teachings of any Christian denomination by careful study of its history or purported teachings.

@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016 you should watch the movie; "The Case For Christ"...

The problem is, as Dr. Meyer explains: He uses the same method as Darwin so if one is to say Intelligent Design is not science, they have to admit that Darwin's Evolution is not science either.

Romans 1 basically. But you can’t come to a saving knowledge of God through reasoning, only circle around him (the idea or deduction of his existence) through the ensemble of inferences. Relationally and intimately it’s through Christ.

@@pascotemplo8869 yes that’s what I was getting at

@@mcmanustony check this out - why do so many other scientist agree with him? Programming of Life kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZpamddSKqai7Zac.html via @KZfaq

@@mcmanustony do you have a better explanation than the video i just posted?

@@mcmanustony you might like this. The info really changed how i look at the world.. or you can ignore it and run around thinking everyone else is an idiot. DNA: The Code of Life (SHA2017) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e8l3gMKUs-C1nXk.html via @KZfaq

@@mcmanustony evolutionary biology is a religion what came 1st the chicken or the egg?

@@mcmanustony Sad pathetic little Trollllllll.

@@mcmanustony Bwaaahahaha! You again? pathetic troll.

Good question.

Bravo? For invoking the god of the gaps?

@@hellowkiske explain to me how he invoked god of the gaps?

@@Carpaintry_of_God what is the mechanism by which alpha diversity "exploded" during the Cambrian?

@@hellowkiske I asked you my question first. I mean you don't have to answer it if you don't want to. But I asked about this specific topic for a reason. I'm not going to go to with your own topic. And if you're not okay with that then that's fine you don't have to answer either.

@@Carpaintry_of_God Perfectly answering your question. If you (or Meyer) can explain the actual mechanism by which alpha diversity increased abruptly, I take my "God of the gaps" argument back (meaning I was wrong - and I am willing to change my mind, as an evolutionary biologist). If not, my argument is 100% valid.

I thought the same when the objection raised by the gent on the left claimed some sort of disconnect.......between biological function and information content. He rambled on about RNA and throw-me-aways (22:33) without ANY clarity as to what Meyer's disconnect was. That is desperation.

+Shaun McInnis You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Best to leave it alone. You personally have about 175 mutations-traits your parents didn' have that you will pass on to your unfortunate progeny. ib.berkeley.edu/labs/nachman/pdfs/nachman_crowell_2000b.pdf Natural selection is a ratchet process. Mutations don't have to "think". That is an idiotic straw man argument. Detrimental mutations are quickly removed from the gene pool. Beneficial mutations are beneficial in relation to the environment the organism lives in. Neutral mutations are passed on and have no effect most of the time, becoming significant only when there is an environmental change. Mutations don't die, you moron. Google "methylation" "These arguments and debates can be held at any level,regardless of education...." No, as you have just proven they require being acquainted with basic facts of biology and at least a minimal science education. You have neither. "......the problem is that when a person is presented with obvious facts and odds they still need to exercise logic"intelligence"....." Hilarious. The assertions presented here are simply the "fallacy of the very large number" His math is bullshit since he starts from a false premise. No one thinks modern proteins formed by chance. ";.... and for some reason I don't see it in the evolutionist / materialist sides." Then you haven't actually studied the subject, fool. " Stephen Miller is a brilliant mind!" Meyer, moron. Meyer. And no, he is a dishonest hack.

+Merrill Clark Typical atheist response ,no substance! ;Mutations can't think was sarcasm ,sorry you couldn't get that. Stick to the point! You said: Beneficial mutations are beneficial according to the environment they live in. That did not address the question of how long a mutation positive or negative would survive until a benefit is reached.You said it would be lost quickly if their were no benefit. An ear for example takes many more mutations then just the outer ear portion or quality before it becomes beneficial ,that component alone would not be enough to sustain it as beneficial in any environment(no function yet). it would be lost according to you as negative.And calling it neutral as I know you will only backs up what I said about having millions of partial mutations throughout our bodies that have no purpose or funtion.It needs many more components and or qualities on top of the initial mutation before it performs a function and benefit even if they are simplified as they would be if evolution where true. An ear for example has many components bones,hammer,anvil,stirrup ,inner ear ,outer ear,eardrum.etc....without any one of these components you are deaf by todays standards.I realize these components would be not be as complex but they are still requirements to perform an operation for a function."benefit". So saying any mutation could be beneficial in it's infancy in any environment still would not sustain it as it would yet have no purpose. Name calling doesn't make give your answers any more credibility by the way, it just shows how angry you are.

@@MerrillClark excuse me...sire...your arrogance is showing....

that was very disturbing to me

@@mcmanustony I wouldn’t even label myself a creationist... just trying to be honest

@@mcmanustony _"That is explicitly NOT what he said. Why are creationists so dishonest?"_ *---* Why did you Stereotype Stephen Beach with creationists?, Also, elaborate the *_"dishonesty of a creationist."_*

@@mcmanustony _"For someone to describe, after a thoroughly dishonest mangling of their statements, the work of actual scientists as "clutching at straws", when it is nothing of the kind, in favour of a lying creationist charlatan like Meyer....I think the charge is fair."_ *---* A is adversarial, B is not. B is learning, A is well equipped in his/her field. B, as a student of the same subject, makes mistakes as a beginner. A displays a inept intolerance by ranting about the inadequacy of B, therefore A is justified. _"elaborate the "dishonesty of a creationist." seriously? you've no awareness of the quote mining, quote manufacturing, outright lying, credential inflation, credential invention that is par for the creationist course."_ *---* Apart from the apparent citing/equating the authoritarian dictation as a sole source of knowledge, You did not provide an adequate answer as to why you reach such a conclusion. *---* "A is not honoured with xyz credential(s), A is apparent to lies, Therefore, my justification for stereotypical tendency." *--* This is, but a cluster of irrelevance. _"Try to get out more."_ *---* Sure! *Concession accepted!* I will, once you do the same, friend.

@@mcmanustony _"What a pile of pompous vacuous tripe."_ _"Creationists lie at the drop of a hat. If you think differently then you haven't thought enough."_ *---------------------------* Addressing the discussion at hand *

@@mcmanustony _"Can you try writing in coherent sentences? Engaging with you is profoundly tedious."_ *---* profoundly tedious, my friend, is your display of irrelevance with insults, you've yet to provide a sound argument against what is posed.

Collins is a bad debater. He lost to Dawkins too.

+Morgan DeHaan Of course the molecules in a snowflake or crystal contain information. What do you think information is? As far as "functionality," this is something that only exists in our perception. If you want to ask "what is the function of a snowflake?" I can say "to look pretty."

Max Spiegel I do know what information is, and it is not the same thing as a pattern. A pattern has no meaning in and of itself. However, if you can use the pattern to convey a meaning, then it becomes information. For instance: ABCDADADCBADC. Just a pattern. It means nothing. If I were to tell you that those were the answers to a multiple choice test, then the pattern becomes meaningful. What meaning do you derive from the patterns in crystals or snowflakes? None. Pretty is not meaning, and it is completely subjective. Information is not subjective, it has specific meaning and specific purpose.

Morgan DeHaan I can equally well say that each molecule and force field is information for the formation of that particular shape. Perhaps you could define "information" since you are obviously not happy with the scientific definition used by Shannon-Weaver theory.

Max Spiegel Information requires communication. A pattern has to communicate a meaning. The more meaning a pattern communicates, the more information it has. If a pattern is not communicating additional meaning beyond its own existence, then it is not information. The pattern of a crystal does not communicate anything, in and of itself, It simply is. Any meaning *you* want to derive out of the shape of a crystal or snowflake is purely subjective, not information, but induced purpose. This isn't a hard concept, and you are attempting to make it more complicated than it is.

Morgan DeHaan Well like I say, you are abandoning the only measurable form of information that we know: that of Shannon information theory. If this is what you want fine, but you now need to be consistent in your new definition. Scientific terms must be defined precisely. Now, what information does DNA communicate, and to whom? What meaning does a particular stretch of DNA have? And since this DNA can change at random, yet still function or even improve in function, how is this meaning objective or concrete? How can you infer design in that which results from random mutation? Certainly it doesn't convey meaning to any humans. What gives you the right to say that the meaning you derive from DNA has meaning simply because you see meaning in DNA, yet the meaning I derive from from the structure of a snowflake is subjective?

You fail to understand that multiverses are toys to play around and make sense of aspects of quantum mechanics that scientists consider still open and not well understood. This is nothing scientists consider as science and you pulling that straw man, is showing you do not understand and do not want to understand anything at all,

I am still of the view that the big bang falls into that category.

It's more honest to say "I don't know" when you don't know, than it is to pretend to know something. Pretending to know something is all creationists have, so they just claim "revealed truth" and stop looking.

"I think therefore I am confused" That is just intellectual honesty on their parts. However, to hit a snag or even many snags and just leap to the conclusion "God did it" has reliably proven to be the wrong approach. "God knows" how many thousands of phenomenon that were once attributed to supernatural forces are now understood on a naturalistic basis. Of course, it requires a slight leap in logic to conclude that the trend towards having a naturalistic explanation will continue until every possible phenomenon does. But even if the naturalist cannot say with 100% confidence that the supernatural does not exist, they can still point to the lack of any actual evidence that it does and the greater parsimony of the naturalistic hypothesis.

@@snuzebuster Weak argument. argument from ignorance We did not know thing back then and now we know so maybe in the future what we think is God will be explained be explained by science. I think most faith people say it is faith that guides them. I have read his book and he says they believe (which is equal to any other person's right to believe) that ID is the only explanation. But what does Dawkins say? ANy different. He does not say "I do not know"he says NO GOD. Now what we did not know 1000 years ago we know now. So are you saying at some future date humans have the potential to know everything? According to your argument YES. That is 100% false. Just because we did not know about DNA 300 years ago, does not mean we will know about death at some future date. They are not the same thing in the world of NOT KNOWING

@@tryintoreason9738 If they stopped looking Meyers would not exist. Makes no sense. 50 Years ago his research did not exist. So if they stopped looking where is all the research coming from. They follow the evidence and look at new things like everyone else. And they both equally dishonest because Dawkins et al even if he found evidence for God would flip it, the same way Meyers would. No one here came for truth, only to be right.

@@africanhistory That's not an argument from ignorance. If I said that you can't prove that science won't find a naturalistic cause for everything, therefore it must be true that it will, that would be an argument from ignorance. But that is nothing like what I said. What I said is more like this: Methodological naturalism has been a very fruitful bedrock principle of science and we should stick with it. Further, though this fact is CERTAINLY NOT PROOF that nothing supernatural does not exist, it certainly weighs against the hypothesis that not having a naturalistic explanation is evidence that a supernatural explanation is required. It's what is called an undercutting defeater for the supernatural hypothesis. That is, it's a reason to think that not having a naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon is not sufficient reason for believing the phenomenon has a supernatural cause. It undercuts the reason for thinking that evolution must have a supernatural cause, but OF COURSE it is not proof that it has a natural cause. Actually I don't think anything could ever prove that everything has a natural cause. Even if every phenomenon of our daily experience and even the beginning of the universe could be given a naturalistic explanation, there could still be a supernatural cause for the existence of nature itself. I don't see any reason to think there is, but that's not proof there isn't.

Yes indeed, this man is a delight! (itching to hear Ravi Z who just appeared on the Sunday special as well)